The exceptional personal quality, the capacity to inspire a following, and the charismatic
‘aura’ characteristic of charismatic leaders are well known (Weber, 1915/1947). This
‘quality’ charismatics embody is of course ‘socially inscribed’ (Wieser et al., 2021, p. 8).
Following Weber, Kallis (2006) remarks charismatic legitimacy is based on followers’
voluntary subscription to a mobilising myth, that is, an ‘emotional belief in the leader’s
capacity to epitomise, further and pursue it’ (p. 31). Charisma is thus a relational concept,
an emotional attachment of followers to a persuasive figure, which Wieser et al. (2021)
term ‘entrainment’. Through the performance of charismatic authority, some charismatic
person brands induce ‘awe and inspiration’ (Fleck et al., 2014, p. 87) and a communal
relationship based on a high degree of entrainment (Dion & Arnould, 2011; Loroz & Braig,
2015; Wieser et al., 2021; Wohlfeil et al., 2019).

Like Wieser et al. (2021), Reh et al. (2017, p. 500) show that charismatic aura is
a synergistic effect of leaders’ behavioural signals. They also argue that ‘individuals
may . . . develop specific prototypes [persona] of charismatic leaders. In general, such
a prototype could encompass not only rhetorical qualities, but also physical characteristics
(i.e. embodied signals)’. In this vein, Hackley et al. (2012) analysed Simon Cowell’s
‘trickster’ persona. Similarly, Dion and Arnould (2011) showed that creative directors’
charismatic persona resides in a combination of qualities associated with the magician
(self-sacrifice, discipline, shape shifting, transformative capabilities) and modern artist
persona (aesthetic innovation, code-breaking capabilities), to which Parmentier and
Fischer (2021) add that creative directors are assessed on commercial effectiveness.
Unlike other forms of legitimacy, charismatic legitimacy depends upon the charismatic
person’s serial performances (Conger, 1993; Weber, 1915/1947; Wieser et al., 2021).
Consequently, prior research points to routinisation, hubris or narcissism, and overcommercialisation
as sources of charisma’s fragility (Cocker & Cronin, 2017; Fournier &
Eckhardt, 2019; Parmentier et al., 2013; Weber 1922/1978).


Most research on charismatic leadership and person branding focuses on individuals
where idiosyncrasy and instability are well documented (e.g. Carruthers, 2006; Fournier &
Eckhardt, 2019; Knittel & Stango, 2014). However, as Parmentier and Fischer (2021) also note
some luxury brands feature successful successions of charismatic brand heirs. Consider Dior,
Chanel, Gucci, Lanvin, St Laurent or Balenciaga to name a few. Dion and Arnould (2011,
p. 2014) showed that some (but not all) luxury brand strategies stand or fall on charismatic
creative directors’ legitimacy. But previous research on charismatic person brands has not
investigated whether and how firms manage to sustain the charismatic legitimacy of
successive charismatic heirs after death or loss of distinction.

Our analysis identifies three general managerial practices that together transfer
and sustain brand charismatic legitimacy (see Figure 1).
First, managing brand charismatic legitimacy over time entails crafting the brand
persona, that is, the cluster of symbols, objects, images, meanings, and myths created
around the brand founder. Management transforms the brand founder’s biography into
a web of specific cultural representations related to the brand founder. Management and
brand heirs actively craft the founder’s brand persona.

Second, the brand persona is reiterated and reinterpreted over time through brand
heirs’ repetitive performance of the brand persona. This position parallels Kantorowicz
(1957/1997 arguments about the challenges facing the royal dignitas, the living heir to
the monarchy. To maintain charismatic legitimacy, heirs perform the brand persona
creatively rather than routinely reproducing the founding brand persona’s style.

Third, brand dynasties rely on what Wickert and Schaefer (2015) term the ‘microengagement’
of myriad brand stewards who certify and promote the performance and
spread emotional commitment. In contrast to Suchman’s (1995) perspective, we maintain
that charismatic legitimacy is an institutional process requiring management to craft the
founder’s persona, guide brand heirs’ performances, and manage brand stewards’ assessment
of brand heirs’ performances. Consistent with previous research (Becker, 1982;
Hewer et al., 2013; Wieser et al., 2021), we argue that performance evaluation is intrinsic
to charismatic legitimacy.

Our analysis revisits the brand persona concept. Some recent research critiques the perspective that the human brand is a narrative construct. For instance, Wieser et al. (2021, pp. 10–11) argue that human brands ‘are real persons with human abilities and challenges’. Our position is that the concept of persona is crucial to understanding the intergenerational transmission of charismatic legitimacy from a brand founder to a brand heir. While brand founders were real living persons, previous scholarship makes it
clear that the myths build up around person brands like Picasso, Warhol, Heini Staudinger, or Martha Stewart were crucial to their legitimacy. Similarly, the myths built up around a deceased founder are as critical to the brand heir’s performances as is the assertion of the latter’s artistic and magical credibility (Dion & Arnould, 2011, p. 2014; Parmentier & Fischer, 2021). The charismatic legitimacy of the brand heir and the founder is a cocreated performance.

In sum, the charsimatic human brand persona like other brands is a performance in which material manifestations, stakeholder performances, and myths are combined through active agencies.

Co-authored with Delphine Dion.

.